CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-9812

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jan 13, 2017 | Modified: Jan 05, 2018
CVSS 3.x
7.5
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V2
4.3 LOW
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
RedHat/V3
4.3 LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Ubuntu
LOW

The gst_mpegts_section_new function in the mpegts decoder in GStreamer before 1.10.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a too small section.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Gstreamer Gstreamer * 1.10.1 (including)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-0:1.4.5-6.el7_3 *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu artful *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu bionic *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu cosmic *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu devel *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu disco *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu eoan *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu esm-infra-legacy/trusty *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu focal *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu groovy *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu hirsute *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu impish *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu jammy *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu kinetic *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu lunar *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu mantic *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu noble *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu oracular *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu trusty *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu upstream *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu vivid/stable-phone-overlay *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu xenial *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu yakkety *
Gst-plugins-bad1.0 Ubuntu zesty *

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

References